Can We Manage Knowledge? (A Practice in Listening)

A lively discussion is now going on after I opened a new page on “Will KM Disappear?” and posted it too in the Linkedin group “Knowledge Management Experts” (to read the comments, click that page on the panel to the right or click HERE).

Some are saying that we cannot really manage knowledge. Others are saying we have been doing it all the time. I have my own views but I wanted to listen and learn (see my previous blog post on Listening) and really understand the thinking behind the comments posted. Why are the views so widely divergent? What does each commentor mean?

I think we need to be clear and precise what our referents are when we say the words “manage” and “knowledge”. Otherwise, confusion and fruitless debates will follow. Some say that labels are unimportant and let us just get on with the work. In this particular instance, we need precision of communication. In a work team, unclear labels will lead to communication gaps and then to performance gaps.

First, note that people do not talk about “managing an idea or concept”. Rather, they talk about “managing a process” involving ideas and concepts. Similarly, some are sceptical of the term “managing knowledge” but instead say “managing knowledge processes”. Nonaka prefers the term “knowledge-based management” instead of “knowledge management” (read Nonaka’s talk in Bangkok last January 2007).

Accordingly in the table below I detailed a range of knowledge processes that we actually refer to when we say we “manage knowledge”.

DECONSTRUCTING THE PHRASE “MANAGING KNOWLEDGE”

From the above deconstruction of the phrase “managing knowledge” we can better —

• Understand why some KM practitioners say that only explicit knowledge (or “knowledge artifacts” or “knowledge objects”) can be managed, and insist that tacit knowledge of employees cannot be directly managed (by managers and executives);
• Understand why other KM practitioners who equate KM solely with organizational KM will say that mankind has been managing knowledge all the time (even before the term KM was invented) and will equally insist that asking whether knowledge can or cannot be managed is asking a silly question;
• Understand why KM practitioners who include also personal knowledge processes in KM will say that managers and executives cannot really manage knowledge in employees; they will also insist that managers and executives can only facilitate, support, motivate or incentivize the knowledge and learning processes going on inside the heads (and hearts) of their employees;
• Understand how the above (often unstated or unconscious) differences in referents inside the heads KM practitioners (who are all well-intentioned) set up or predispose them towards miscommunication and fruitless debate (I wrote this blog post to avoid this); and
• Understand why change management and similar behavioral tools — which address personal knowledge processes (nearer the bottom of the table) — must often accompany KM.

Here is my 2 cents worth:

The most important knowledge process in the above table is knowledge use/application/practice (the bottom one in red text). There are only two value-creating steps in the knowledge cycle, and knowledge use/application/practice is one of them. If this step is missing or faulty, all other knowledge processes would amount to useless expenditures. Since this value-creating step is affected most heavily by personal factors, KM must include “personal KM” or personal knowledge processes in its scope of concern and therefore also scope of definition.

Therefore, personal KM cannot be optional because personal knowledge processes in each employee are at the foundation of effective organizational KM.

What do you think?

(My thanks to Fernando Goldman, Skip Boettger, Jim Coogan, Harold Jarche, Douglas Weidner and John Tropea for their comments, which made me think this issue through.)

—

Note that there are embedded links in this blog post. They show up as colored text. While pressing “Ctrl” click on any link to create a new tab to reach the websites pointed to.

=>Back to main page of Apin Talisayon’s Weblog
=>Jump to Clickable Master Index

F1- KM is Not Enough!

A simple exercise useful to introduce KM concepts to a workshop
group is to ask each one the question:

Shop this charming range of newborn boys’ baby clothing. Shop online for a wide range of Baby boy gift sets at the Extoboo Baby shop. Browse all of our fantastic deals and choose to either reserve or buy online.

“What helps you do your job well?” (KM gurus such as Sveiby, Drucker, Nonaka and O’Dell say essentially the same thing: that ”knowledge” is capacity for effective action, including information to support effective action). Each participant is provided with metacards or Post-Its to write down their answers. Answers are then collected, clustered and posted in front for everyone to study.

Among dozens of workshop groups for which we facilitated this exercise, the result is almost always the same four clusters below:

1. Skills, experiences, training, education,

attitudes

, leadership skills,

self-motivation

, health, etc.: we call this cluster HUMAN CAPITAL

2. Support systems, access to information, manuals, guidelines,

vision/mission

,

empowering policies

, learning procedures, business processes, etc.: we call this cluster STRUCTURAL CAPITAL (or some KM practitioners call this cluster PROCESS CAPITAL)

3. External linkages/networks, relationships with customers and suppliers, teamwork and

trust

within the organization, trust/reputation of the organization,

support from peers, inspiration and recognition of bosses

, etc.: we call this cluster RELATIONSHIP CAPITAL (or sometimes called STAKEHOLDER CAPITAL or more narrowly as CUSTOMER CAPITAL)

4. Technology/equipment, building and office space, facilities/furniture, financial resources,

conducive workplace,

physical accessibility,

good pay and incentives

, etc.: we call this cluster TANGIBLE ASSETS (meaning, they are included in the accounting system)

In 30 minutes, the group examines the clusters they made and is able to:

• See the 3 components of INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL, namely, Human, Structural and Relationship Capital;
• Learn that KNOWLEDGE ASSETS is almost synonymous with Intellectual Capital;
• Grasp how the meaning of “knowledge assets” differs from the many meanings of “knowledge” among laymen;
• Realize that Intellectual Capital is mostly INTANGIBLE (non-physical but generates value for the organization; not always entered in accounting systems or given money value);
• See that both tangible and especially intangible assets contribute to performance and value creation;
• Realize that accountants are seeing and measuring only one cluster: tangible assets;
• Recognize the link between KM and performance or value creation;
• See that improvement of performance is the result of good KM, and a basis for measuring KM impact;
• Learn about KM terminologies;
• Recognize that many areas of management overlap with KM (HR is about managing Human Capital; ICT is about managing some of the Structural Capital; and CRM is about managing some of the Relationship Capital).

We also discover that good relationships (both within and outside the organization) are important for effective performance. Yet arguably, relationship is not exactly “knowledge” isn’t it? That is why a minority of KM practitioners refuse to acknowledge or agree with St. Onge that Customer Capital is part of Intellectual Capital, or at least claim that Stakeholder Capital is not a “Knowledge Asset” (please allow me to interchangeably use the economic term “capital” with the accounting term “asset” here). Despite this debate, it is clear that to achieve effective action, or to improve individual or organizational performance, we must manage relationships — whichever way we scope or define “knowledge”.

One way I say it, is that human capital is EMBODIED knowledge, structural capital is EMBEDDED knowledge and relationship capital is ENCULTURATED knowledge — or am I stretching the meaning of “knowledge” too much here?

Another issue crops up: “knowledge” is not entirely intangible because technology is embedded knowledge, and technology is NOT intangible. This is the reason that some KM practitioners use the popular People-Process-Technology model of KM. I am not comfortable with this KM model; I prefer the more complete People-Process-Relationship-Technology model. In any case, this is another debatable point.

Motivation or Energy or what?

But what is more interesting is that the workshop groups also notice a fifth cluster (examine the entries in bold italics above) that cuts across the four clusters. What the groups cannot agree on is how to label this cluster. Is it Motivational Factors? Is it Energy? What do we call it? (my CCLFI colleagues prefer the latter neutral term). This leads to another realization, which is really self-evident: that a knowledge worker may know HOW to do a job, but he or she may not WANT or be WILLING to do it. Managing knowledge assets is not enough; we also need to manage motivational factors. We need to pay attention to both the Head and the Heart to achieve more effective action.

My bottom line is this: we can accept, reject or change terminologies including the term “knowledge management” as long as we adequately cover all the pertinent factors that affect or contribute to good performance of a knowledge worker or to value creation by a private or public organization. Accordingly, it appears from the above data that “managing intangible assets” is more comprehensive than “managing knowledge assets” or “knowledge management”.

What do you think?

(I read a conference paper last July in Kuala Lumpur on this topic which you can download from http://www.cclfi.org/downloads. It is entitled “Some Stories about How Personality and Culture Come into Our Knowledge Management Practice”)

=>Back to main page of Apin Talisayon’s Weblog
=>Jump to Clickable Master Index